265  Download (0)

Full text


&F 10




'r ~ ..





1. 4 r j5 !J8

C, l





J.K. Hiller, B.A.

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.



i i .

This Thesis has been examined and approved by:



The old protestant Church of the United Brethren, commonly known as the Moravian Church, was revived by Count Zinzendorf in the 1720's.

Attention soon turned to foreign missions, and one of the earliest was in Greenland. It was decided to extend the work to the Labrador Eskimos, and after an abortive attempt to establisp a mission on the coast in 1752, a more determined programme was undertaken in the 1760's under the leader- ship of Jens Haven. With the blessing of government, a mission station was established at Nain in 1771, administered jointly by the German and English branches of the Moravian Church. Other stations were established at Okkak (1776) and Hopedale (1782).

The policy of the mission was to contain the Eskimos in the

north, and to gather them into regulated Christian communities established on traditional Moravian lines. The difficulties were many. The mission could not provide a complete economic substitute for the southern trader, and the policy of containment did not fully succeed. Also, the realisation of the settled community ideal involved far-reaching economic, social and religious changes for the Eskimos, which took far longer to occur than the missionaries originally anticipated. The mission had high standards and was not prepared to compromise. There were not many conversions in the

early years, but as the mission became part of the established scene, so the Eskimos' reliance on economic and social services increased; the journies south gradually ceased, and mission schools began to have an ~


effect on the young people. The presence of the mission, and of convert groups following an alien pattern of life disrupted the uniformity of Eskimo society - a uniformity which was reestablished by the convulsive



"revival" of 1804-5. This established mission dominance from Okkak to Hopedale and brought into being the settled community, although in a modified form to suit the Labrador environment.



The more analytic history becomes, the more difficult i t is to observe the traditional historical duty of presenting the results of

research in narrative form. Indeed, the linking of the twin perspectives of depth and time, the vertical and the horizontal, has been the main problem in the writing of this thesis. The early chapters, describing the European background and tracing the events leading up to the establish- ment of the Nain mission in 1771, lend themselves to the narrative approach.

But the remaining chapters, being concerned with the impact of the mission on the Eskimo bands of north Labrador, are necessarily analytic, although an attempt has been made in Chapter VIII to return to the narrative, in order to place the changes described earlier in a time perspective.

The study takes as its terminal points the ill-fated Ehrhardt expedition of 1752 and the "revival" of 1804-5. The "revival" marks the overall success of Moravian evangelism along the coast from Okkak south to Hopedale, and the end of the first period of Moravian activity in Labrador.

After 1805 the mission became the establishment, and ceased to be an active agent of social, religious, and economic change. While the impact of the mission on the northern Eskimos is clear, i t is not yet possible to evaluate

the Moravian contribution to Labrador as a whole. When research has been completed on the mission in the nineteenth century, and the development of settlement in south Labrador, i t may be possible to arrive at some conclusions which are outside the scope of this thesis.



Certain parts of the story told here have appeared in print before in books and articles by missionaries, explorers, anthropologists and

historians. Indeed, almost every book on coastal Labrador includes a potted history of the mission. Very few of these writers, though, made use of the original mission records now preserved in Moravian archives in London, England, and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Those who did know of the existence of these materials were often daunted by the sheer volume of manuscript involved, and the German written in spidery Gothic hands. In

this respect, I was no exception. With a schoolboy knowledge of German, a limited amount of time, and eyes which do not take kindly to long hours at the microfilm reader, I was forced to make an arbitrary selection from the available evidence. Basically, I only used that material, published and I unpublished, which was available in English. German documents were only

translated when legible, and apparently vital to fill a gap. Luckily, there was enough documentary material in English to make a fairly detailed study of the early period possible, but this cavalier approach accounts for the gaps that remain, and for the cursory treatment of some points, particularly the internal organisation of the mission itself.

The station diaries used for this research are contemporary trans- lations from the German originals, made in London for the information of English Moravian congregations and societies. They vary immensely in their usefulness, since the translators abridged the German diaries heavily. This practice died out after 1790, when the London Moravians began publishing the

Periodical Accounts relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren.


Thus for the period after 1790, I have made extensive use of the letters and diary extracts published in this periodical.

My thanks are due to the Canadian Rhodes Scholars' Foundation, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the Institute of Social and Economic Research at that University for financial support; to Dr. L.G. Harris, my Supervisor; to the British Mission Board of the Moravian Church, for letting me loose in their archives; to the Reverend F.W. Peacock, present Superin-

tendant of the Moravian Mission in Labrador, for hospitality and access to his library and his knowledge; and to Michael Staveley for drawing the maps and plans. In various ways, I am ~o grateful to the following: Miss Agnes O'Dea, Dr. F.A. Hagar, Mr. H.A. Williamson, Reverend S. Hettasch, Reverend S. Launder, Mr. J. Broomfield, Miss Jean Briggs, Mr. Garth Taylor, and the staff of Memorial University Library.

J.K. Hiller July, 1967







The Moravian Church • Labrador, 1752-1764 •

The Moravians and Labrador, 1764-1771

Coastal Expansion and Mission Organisation • •


Difficulties of the Trade

The Economic Problems of the Settled Community.

The Settled Community - Religious and Social Change • The Progress of the Settled Community and the Revival of 1804-5 • • •

APPENDIX I The 1752 Mission House • .

II Eighteenth Century Eskimo Population and Distribution in North Labrador • • • • •

III Table 5 - Personal Data of the Labrador Missionaries arriving beofre 1810 • •

IV Table 6 - Congregations and Wintering Populations, 1771-1810

V Bibliography.

FIGURES 1 Northern Labrador in the Eighteenth Century 2 The Nain Area •

3 The Okkak Area. •


The Hopedale Area •




1 19-


90 112 12




_, I

2or ______ r J



238 240

27 74 97 97


TABLES 1 Comparison of the Value of Missionary Produce and

Company Profit and Loss, 1770-1781 • • • • . • 115 2 The Operation of the 1785 Agreement and S.F.G. Profit

and Loss, 1785-1796. 124

3 The Labrador Trading Operation and S.F.G. Profit and

Loss, 1797-1800 • • 126


Eighteenth Century Population Estimates, Arvertok to

Nachvak. • 231

Personal Data of Missionaries • • 234

6 Congregations and Wintering Populations, 1771-1810 • . • 238

PLANS 1 Nain in 1786 • • • • 100

2 Hopedale, after 1785 • 103

3 Congregation Size, 1771-1810 • 207





LA Mss.

Mor. Mss.









Documents collected In the Matter of the Boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the Colony of Newfoundland in the

Labrador Peninsula (1927).

Colonial Office Records.

Documents microfilmed from the London Archive of the Moravian Church, 1966. The number following this reference refers to the appropriate reel.

Unmicrofilmed material in the London Archive of the Moravian Church.

Documents collected from the Labrador mission stations and now deposited at the Moravian Archive, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Microfilm copy.

Documents microfilmed from the London Archive of the Moravian Church by the Public Archives of Canada. The number following this reference refers to the appropriate reel.

Periodical Accounts relating to the Missions of the Church of the United Brethren, established among the Heathen.

The Brethrens' Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel.

Ship's Company Papers.


-Unity's Elders' Conference.

1see Appendix V, p. 240 for Bibliography.



Dictionary of National Biography Hopedale Diary

Nain Diary Okak Diary

In all references, Roman numerals refer to volumes, Arabic numerals to pages.



[The Moravian Church] sent out its missionaries in simplicity and lowliness, poorly supplied, indeed, with externals, but armed with a lively zeal, and an intense strength of faith. The seed which they were favoured to sow, grew mightily by the blessing of God, and prospered, t i l l after the silent but most persevering labours of many years, its produce filled the wilder- ness with its fragrance, and gladdened the desert places of the earth with its beauty •••• Fromvery small beginnings, an assembly of about six hundred poor exiles, did this great work connnence in hope, and the several flourishing settlements in various parts of the globe now testify, that the strength of the Lord has accompanied the weak endeavours of his servants, that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, and that the feeblest instruments are sometimes made use of to perform the most signal exploits in extending the kingdom of the Cross.

David Grantz, The History of Greenland (London: 1820), 11:4.

In reading these very curious productions, we seemed to be in a new world, and to have got among a set of beings, of whose existence we had hardly before entertained the slightest conception •••• To [our] confined habits, and to our want of proper introductions among the children of light and grace, any degree of surprise is to be attributed, which may be excited by the publications before us; which, under opposite circumstances, would (we doubt not) have proved as great a source of instruction and delight to Ius], as they are to the most melodious votaries of the tabernacle.

Sydney Smith, "Methodism," Works (4th edition, London: 1848), 1:183.



The only existing Protestant sects to claim pre-Reformation origins are the Waldensians and the Moravians. The latter church, deriving from the medieval heretical underworld, dates its existence from 1457. 1 The Brethren built on the ruins of the Taborite party, defeated in the Hussite wars at the Battle of Lipan (1434) by a

coalition of the moderate Utraquist party with the Roman Catholics. 2 The Taborites originally had a strong antinomian wing, and represented extreme anti-clericalism; driven underground, they repudiated their unsavoury origins, and claimed to be a new movement. The group that settled with Gregory the Patriarch at Kunwald, near Lititz in Moravia, in 1457 showed no Taborite fanaticism, but the personnel was largely ex-Taborite, even if the name and attitude had changed. In a Confession of 1572, the Unity of the Brethren claimed that since all Taborites had been killed by 1457, their Church was no relation. So far as they were concerned, their history began at Kunwald.

The Kunwald settlers had at first no desire to be an independent body, wanting only to be allowed to continue their own quiet rural existence.

Anti-Catholic agitation was s t i l l strong in Bohemia, however, and the Brethren found themselves its new point d'appui. Suffering spasmodic per- secution from Catholics and Utraquists, they were forced in self-defence to set up an independent organisation. In 1464 three elders were elected

1This section is based on R.A. Knox, Enthusiasm (Oxford: 1950), pp. 390-398; Edward Langton, History of the Moravian Church (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956); and J.E. Hutton, A History of the Moravian Church

(2nd edition, London: 1909).

2The Utraquists or Calixtenes demanded Communion for the laity in both kinds.


- 2 -

as a governing board, and three years later, the Brethren instituted their own ministry. The first bishop of the Church, Michael Bradacius, was con- secrated by a Waldensian bishop, and the line is claimed to have continued unbroken to the present day.

By the start of the sixteenth century, the Brethren had about

two hundred churches in Bohmeia and Moravia, and the German reformers showed themselves reasonably anxious to join with them, and so give Protestantism a pedigree. The Brethren themselves welcomed the Reformation, and their

leader, Luke of Prague, built up a strong connection with Luther, who printed their Confession of Faith, and paid them tribute in his introduction (1538).

Mutual disenchantment developed however; the Brethren felt that the German reformers were paying too little attention to discipline, and sent several deputations to Luther on the subject. It is not surprising that he found

them prigs; the Bohemian Protestants went their own way.

Catholic persecution in the 1540's led to. an emigration into Poland and Prussia in 1548, but when the situation eased in the 1560's, many returned, and the old Church flourished as never before. After 1612, Counter-Reformation Catholocism staged its counter-attack in Bohemia, and with the defeat of the Protestants, including the Brethren, at Weissenberg in 1620, the old Brethrens' Church was effectively ended. Once again there was an exodus to Poland, and a general dispersion. No permanent centre was established, and only a few congregations hung on in Bohemia, Moravia, and some central European towns. The survivors were called the "Hidden Seed", and became chiliastic in their misfortune. The episcopacy was carried on; John Amos Comenius consecrated his son-in-law Peter Jablonski, who in turn consecrated his son Daniel. It was this last who consecrated David Nitschmann, the first bishop of the renewed Church.


The renewer of the Brethren's Church was Nicholas Lewis, Count and Lord of Zinzendorf and Pottendorf. He was raised under the influence of Pietism, that attempt led by Philip Spener to rally a genuinely pious devotional group within the Lutheran Church. The movement was an antici- pation of the Evangelical Revival, with its chief centre of influence at Halle, where Zinzendorf was educated. From there he entered the more

strictly orthodox Lutheran atmosphere of Wittenberg, but he remained loyal to his background of true godliness and personal piety in intimate fellow- ship. Zinzendorf was a precocious Christian; he apparently sought God at the age of four, and was worried by atheistic scruples at the age of eight.3 At ten, he founded a religious club that was to expand into the Order of the Mustard Seed, whose object was the reunion of the Churches. This was to remain an obsessive idea, which affected all his dealings with the Moravian Church, and indeed, largely determined its future character.

So far as his .theology is concerned, i t is distinguished by his central devotion to the Person of Christ. "Johannine rather than Pauline, i t was a faith and a love rooted in the Incarnation as interpreted in a mind in which was fused the mystic's quest for God, and the evangelist's passion for souls."4 10nly in and through Christ would men find God, and the central point of Christ's Gospel was the Cross. I Zinzendorf developed a fixation regarding the Crucifixion; he created a "Blood and Wounds"

theology, and was to teach his missionaries to concentrate on this in their preaching.

3Hutton, History of the Moravian Church, p. 178.

4w.G. Addison, The Renewed Church of the United Brethren, 1722-1930 (London: S.P.C.K., 1932), p. 19.


His is the true prophetic-evangelical type of piety characteristic of German Protestantism, with its instinct for homely colloquy with God, for the preaching of the Word, for simple converse and spiritual exercises in company with like-minded souls, above all, for its warm and cheerful devo- tion to Jesus the Lord and Saviour.5

- 4 -

In 1722, Zinzendorf bought an estate at Bethelsdorf in Saxony, and installing his Lutheran friarlRothe as pastor, set about creating his own model village. The same year, a party of Protestant refugees from

Moravia arrived, led by an apostate Catholic, Christian David. Zinzendorf being away, his Steward led them to a hill on the estate where they might build. This place the steward called Herrnhut - "The Lord's Watch." This first group consisted of only a few members of the "Hidden Seed;" but as more exiles arrived - David went back and forth to Moravia ten times6- so

did descendants of the old Moravian Church. The peculiar religious traditions of these refugees mattered little either to David or Zinzendorf, and Herrnhut became a centre for discontented Protestants of all shades, Calvinist, Pietist, or Anabaptist. Zinzendorf was not averse to collecting denominations; he

wanted to unite them all into a microcosm that the world might imitate.7 By 1727, however, Herrnhut had become a nest of fanatics, and stood opposed to the Bethelsdorf settlement. Zinzendorf, who had hitherto virtually ignored the refugees, had to step in, and as lord of the manor, laid down a code of civil regulations known as The Manorial Injunctions and Prohibitions. A second document, the Brotherly Union and Compact, created a voluntary moral society of persons agreeing to a certain mode of communal

5Addison, The Renewed Church, p. 20.

6 Hutton, History of the Moravian Church, p. 195.

7 Knox, Enthusiasm, p. 401.


life. Neither document was to apply solely to the Moravian Brethren, indeed i t was not until after the promulgation of these documents that Zinzendorf found a copy of Comenius' version of the Ancient Brethren's Ratio Disciplinae, and realised what exactly he had up on the hill. The discovery did not

shake his conviction that his brotherhood should remain inside the Lutheran Church; mistakenly, he believed that the old church had been what he wanted Herrnhut to be - a Gemeinschaft in the Pietist manner, a Gemeine embodying the "ideal of the Unity of the true children of God."8 In August 1729, he replied to criticism that he was founding a new sect; in the Notariats- Instrument, he claimed that he was only renewing an ancient Gemeine; that Herrnhut would cultivate friendship with other Brethren and Gemeinen that

attained Lutheran standards of Church membership; and that the exiles would join in public worship with the Lutherans at Bethelsdorf. The Brethren were to be ecclesiola in ecclesia.

Zinzendorf never quite reconciled himself to the fact that he did create a sect, for he could never lose the ideal of Unity on the simple basis of the Saviour. To explain the multiplicity of Churches, he preached that God's dealings with man vary, but the truth of the Gospel is one; a community of spirit exists, but i t is " ... convenient that every country should use such ceremonies as they think best to the setting forth of

God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living ... "9 Thus Zinzendorf evolved the idea of the Tropus, by which he meant that/unity of the spirit could be kept in spite of diversities

8Addison, The Renewed Church, p. 37.

9zinzendorf, Of Ceremonies, quoted in Addison, The Renewed Church, pp. 32-3.


- 6 -

in creed and liturgy- diverse tropoi; thus, the " . . . peculiar Moravian genius ( of the emigrants could retain the old Moravian dis- cipline and forms of worship, while other members of the community might as rightly retain the Lutheran or Reformed ritual they had been accustomed


to. True to his teaching, Zinzendorf became a Lutheran pastor in 1734, and a Moravian bishop in 1737.

The traditions of the exiles, derived from their Fathers in the Bohemian BrUder-Kirche, and the disapprobation of the Landskirche, including the Pietists, forced Zinzendorf and his colleagues to a more definite and independent organisation. He continued to maintain, even after his con- secration, that this did not imply separatism, and thus under his influence, the renewed church spread in two characteristic ways, by the Diaspora plan, and by the settlement.

Diaspora work was in essence the formation of scattered groups, held together by an inner bond, which accepted the moral and doctrinal

standards of the Brethren, and with the consent of the local clergy, welcomed the ministrations of the Brethren's workers. These adherents were expected to continue participating in the sacraments of their own denominations. In North Wales, later on in the eighteenth century, Moravian pastors could apparently be seen shepherding their flocks into parish churches. This in part explains why so few Moravian congregations were ever founded. Diaspora groups were ordered not to set up as separate congregations, even though this was a time when increasing missionary activity was starting to put a

10G.A. Wauer, The Beginnings of the Brethren's Church in England, quoted in Addison, The Renewed Church, p. 34.


strain on the existing organisation. As has been said, perhaps unkindly, the Diaspora plan was "the ecclesiastical conspirator's attempt to achieve I

the reunion of Christendom by creating in every national Church an elite of Zinzendorfians."ll

While Diaspora groups were really auxiliaries to existing de- nominations, the Moravian church itself existed only within the settle-

ment, which to the outsider, was the typical form of Moravian organisation.

With its highly selective entry, the settlement was one way to inhibit the growth of the Gemeine into an established denomination; i t also reinforced the idea of a brotherhood, which in Zinzendorf's view should be a small, cohesive and disciplined fellowship. He was attracted both by the tradition of discipline in the old Church, and by the concept of a spiritual elite, living apart from the world, over which he might rule. Only through the settlement could a Christianity of the highest quality be produced.

Zinzendorfian Christianity was a religion of the heart, and within a settlement, the hearts of its members could be carefully watched and con- trolled. The Elders ruled all aspects of life, regulating business and amusements, and giving permission to a Brother to name his heir or to take a wife. They controlled entry into the settlement, and also that Moravian peculiarity, the choir system, whereby the congregation was divided by age and sex. Each division, or choir, had its own hostel and its own special workers. Within the choirs were bands, groups of three to seven people, who met regularly to talk of spiritual matters. The choirs and bands were

tightly controlled by "Helpers" or "Labourers," who convened the meetings

11 Knox, Enthusiasm, p. 403.


- 8 - with the permission of the Elders.l2 "Watchful and careful they viewed all points of the battle array, and endeavoured to fix their field dis- positions so as to throw back the enemy ...• "l 3 In this way, the authorities kept a close watch on the spiritual development or otherwise of the Brethren.

Bad reports could literally mean expulsion, although this was an extreme penalty, and a fallen Brother would usually have to undergo some lesser form of Church Discipline - public reproof, or banishment from the sacra- ments, until evidence of true repentance was shown. The settlement system, like Diaspora work, had an inhibiting effect on church growth, but i t should be remembered that at this stage, and until well on in the nineteenth century, t

the Moravian Church had no great desire to grow at all. '


Until Zinzendorf's death in 1760, the organisation of the Church as a whole was left undeveloped. The Count ruled as an autocrat, and

although Synods met, there was no formalisation of their composition and powers. Supreme administrative power at first lay not with Zinzendorf, but with the holder of the office of General Elder, though he of course acted

within the lines laid down by the Count. The fear that this office could

develop into a Protestant Papacy was allayed by the bald decision in 1741

"That the office of General Elder be abolished and transferred to the

Saviour." In 1760 there were two bodies for administration, a Raths- Conferenz for general direction, and a Board to manage finance. It was evident that some reorganisation was vital if the Church was to survive

without Zinzendorf's energy and money. His lieutenant, Spangenberg, was

12Addison, The Renewed Church, pp. 61, 121.

13Herrnhut Diary (1735), Quoted Addison, The Renewed Church, p. 61.


brought back from America, where he had been concerned with the foundation of Moravian settlements, and three Synods were held in 1764, 1769 and 1775 to work out a new constitution. The supreme power was vested in the

General Synod, which appointed bishops and ministers, and the executive which was to administer the Church between Synods. All appointments were ratified by the lot,l4 and the executive, known at first as the Directory, and after 1769 as the Unity's Elders' Conference (U.E.C.), was responsible to the Synod. This centralised all real power in Germany, and the U.E.C.

in practice consisted invariably of Germans. The Provincial Synods which existed in Upper Lusatia, Silesia, England, Holland, Ireland, and America, had only deliberative powers. All their decisions had to be approved by

the General Synod or the U.E.C. The latter body appointed the executive officers in each province, who were not responsible to their provinces, but to the U.E.C., which even went so far as to appoint local Elders' Con- ferences and settlement managers, and to give approval or otherwise to the marriage of every minister, always according to the lot.

This concentration of authority cannot be attributed to a desire on the part of the German province for predominance over the other provinces, nor to a particular desire to exercise benevolent autocracy. It was rather the result of an attempt to preserve loyalty to the centre by followers of Zinzendorf who regarded the Unity not as a distinct church, but as a fed- eration of members in societies and settlements auxiliary to the National Churches. The main thread of Moravian Church History is the fading of the Zinzendorfian imprint in constitutional as in other matters, and the mid-

14 See pp. 11-12 below.


- 10 -

nineteenth century sees the growth of liberalised church government and

. 1 . d d E 1 . h M . h . . 15 d h

provinc1a 1n epen ence. ng 1s orav1an 1stor1ans ten to resent t e cramping effect that excessive continental control has had on their church, and to present their histories in somewhat Whiggish terms. This fails to take into account the conception that Zinzendorf and his followers held of the renewed Unity; they never meant i t to be a church in the accepted sense, and thus centralism can be justified as the only way to hold to- gether the scattered adherents of the Brotherhood.

In the 1730's, fired by Zinzendorf's enthusiasm, the first

Moravian missionaries left Herrnhut, for the West Indies in 1732, Greenland in 1733, Lapland in 1734, for the Cape of Good Hope and the Guinea Coast in 1737, for the Samoyedes in Russia in 1737-8. Not all these journeys

led to the foundation of permanent mission fields, but missionary enthusiasm continued undiminished, and since this time, the Moravian Church has been oriented towards foreign missions, seeing them as one of the main objects of its existence.

Missionaries were formally appointed by Zinzendorf, and after his death, by the Missions Department of the U.E.C •• 1 A volunteer had to inform the authorities of his desire to preach to the heathen, and at the same time, a report on him would be sent by the Elders of his Congregation.16 The typical missionary was an artisan, with little intellectual training,

but ••• in lieu of this ••• armed with a lively faith, sound sense, and a constitution inured to hardships and toil. Neither have the Brethren, in their subsequent labours among the heathen, 15 e.g., J.E. Hutton.


rnstructions for the Members of

in the Gospel among the Heathen. (London:

the Unitas Fratrum who Minister

S.F.G., 1784), pp. 6-7.


found it expedient, to employ in the capacity of missionaries, men of much literary knowledge, who cannot easily conform their manner of life to the circumstances, or sympathise with the

ignorance of the savages . . . . 17

He had to obey the Church authorities implicitly - Zinzendorf until his death, and later, the Missions' Department of the U.E.C. - and had to be willing to work for his living, and serve without pay.l8

1 The roots of the missionaries' devotion seem to lie in their belief in the direct and active intervention of God in everyday life. Their assur- ance was by no means confined to the next life; as Wesley put it, i t was

"Firma fiducia in Deum, et persuasio de gratia divina, tranquillitas mentis

summa atque serenitas et pax."l9 They were willing therefore to decide all questions by Lot: "To me, the Lot and the Will of God are one and the same thing. I would rather trust an innocent piece of paper than my own excited feelings."20 Zinzendorf was in the habit of carrying around a little green book with detachable leaves, on each of which was written a motto or text, and when in a quandary, he would pull one out at random. He told his missionaries to do the same, instructing Matthew Stach, for instance, the

17David Crantz, The History of Greenland (London: Longman, 1820), II:233.

18J. Taylor Hamilton (A History of the Missions of the Moravian Church, (Bethlehem, Pa.: 1901) p. 18.) gives the information that from 1733, Herrnhut was divided into two classes with respect to mission work - descen- dants of those families who had belonged to the old Moravian Church, and former members of other Protestant sects who had recently joined the renewed church. The former were expected to produce men who would be willing to serve overseas, while the latter had no such obligations. This does not mean, so far as Labrador was concerned, that there was a preponderance of old Moravians among the missionaries in the period dealt with here. Out of a total of 59 men and women, only eight are listed in the Church Books as having been born Moravians, and of these, only two (Joseph Neisser and

Johann Schneider) came from an old Moravian family. See Appendix III,p, 234).

19 Wesley's Journal, 10/8/1738, quoted Knox, Enthusiasm, p. 411.

20 zinzendorf to Spangenberg, quoted in Hutton, Missions, p. 172.


- 12 -

first to go to Greenland, never to take a single step without consulting the lot. 21 Although the use of the lot had an inhibiting effect in church government, i t gave the missionary the invaluable assurance that he was

d. I

obeying God ~rectly. It was also Moravian practice to select one verse as the watchword for each day; at first the text would be chosen day by day, but soon Text Books were issued, which covered a whole year. The daily text was thought to have a special message - and this was another prop to the confidence of the missionary. The party travelling to Labrador were much encouraged when the text for July 1, 1771, the day they arrived at St. John's, read "Thy gates shall be open continually -that men may bring unto thee the forces of the gentiles" (Isaiah XI:2).22

Zinzendorf maintained that good example could drag the heathen from the mire of sin. Especially while ignorant of the native language, the Brethren must preach through their actions. Thus missionaries must labour, and earn their own living. They must be content with bare necessi- ties, and were neither to demand luxuries nor accept presents. "You must labour with your hands," Zinzendorf told Schmidt in South Africa, "until you have won the love of the people" - "you must set them such a dazzling example that they cannot help asking who made these delightful creatures."

No missionary must ever seek the praise of men: the Brethren must be willing to suffer, die, and be forgotten, content that such is the will of God. \ They must themselves obey their ecclesiastical and secular superiors, and

" ••• teach the heathen, by your example, to fg.ar God and honour the King."23



Missions, p. 172.

22 History of the Mission of the Church of the United Brethren in Labrador for the past Hundred Years (London: W. Mallalieu and Co., 1871), p. 17. (Also in PA XVIII:57).

23Quotations from Hutton, Missions, pp. 176-177.


During the early years, the method that the missionaries used to expound Christianity to the heathen was much the same as that of any other protestant church. 1They proved the existence of God, and described his attributes, the creation and the fall; they expounded the Mosaic Laws, and tried to prove to the heathen that they were sinners deserving punish- men, and in need of a Saviour to reconcile them with God. This had little success, and the Brethren found that they could touch the hearts of the unconverted more speedily by concentrating on Christ and the crucifixion;

"the blood and death of Jesus must remain our diamond in the golden ring

of the gospel." 24 The inculcation of doctrine was believed to be less important that a genuine change of heart, a work of the spirit, which could be produced by dwelling on what a Danish Lutheran missionary in

Greenland called "Christ in His state of degradation and His hardest suffer- ings."25

The same principle was to apply in foreign missions as in Diaspora I

work: "You must not enrol your converts as members of the Moravian Church;


you must be content to enrol them as Christians."26 In those areas where no other churches were at work, typical Moravian congregations were of course set up; but where the denominational nature of the Christian Church was apparent, the Moravians trod, except in Greenland, with care:

We confess and preach to the heathen "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" as the Saviour of the world ... and we seek, so far as in us lies, to keep them ignorant of the many divisions in Christendom: but if they happen to have been informed thereof

..• we endeavour with great precaution to approve ourselves

24 A.G. Spangenberg, An Account of the Manner in which the Protestant Church of the Unitas Fratrum . . . preach the Gospel, and carry on their Missions among the Heathen (London: 17881 p. 61.

25Quoted in H. Ostermann, "The History of the Mission", Greenland (Copenhagen


London :.r l929), III: 293.

26 Hutton, Missions, p. 182.


- 14 -

impartial, speak of the several divisions with much tenderness, and to extenuate and not exaggerate the differences, that thus the knowledge of the mystery of Christ may be increased, and misapprehensions diminished.27

Thus by 1760, there were only 1,000 enrolled converts. This attitude towards independent growth stems from Zinzendorf's complete lack of faith in the future of the Moravian Church; his dream was always of one holy and catholic church, and he used the metaphor "temporary tent" to describe the supposedly transitory nature of the renewed Unity. He also believed that the time for the conversion of whole nations had not yet come. As long as the Jews remained unconverted, the only heathen that would accept the Gospel would be a few chosen "Candace-Souls" ("First-Fruits"), but before the end of the eighteenth century, Jesus Christ would appear in bodily form to the Jews, and they would then begin to preach the Gospel. 28 It is understandable that some commentators seem to doubt Zinzendorf's sanity.

His principles regarding missionary work were, however, generally maintained after his death. The "First Fruits" idea was abandoned in 1764, when i t was declared that the missionaries should preach to all, and

organise themselves in the field as integral parts of the church, each mission field becoming a Province, directly controlled by the Missions' Department in Germany. In time Zinzendorf's stringent regulations con- cerning, for instance, the acceptance of presents and payments, were

relaxed and the attitude towards education changed; but these are develop- ments which lie outside the present field of study.

27 Spangenberg, Candid Declaration of the Church known by the name of the Unitas Fratrum relative to their Labour among the Heathen (1768), quoted Addison, The Renewed Church, p. 155.

28 Hutton, Missions, p. 183.


It was business relating to the establishment of settlements in British North America that first brought members of the renewed Unity

to England. 29

In 1732, a group of Schwenkenfelders were ordered by the Saxon authorities to leave Zinzendorf's estates, and he applied to the Georgia Trustees for land. Spangenberg, who was put in charge of the project, went to London to make the necessary arrangements, and to sound out the Trustees on the matter of a mission to the Indians. He met

opposition from an Hanoverian group at Court led by the chaplain,

Ziegenhagen, but made a firm friend for the Brethren in Oglethorpe, the chairman of the Trustees. The settlers left for Georgia in~l735, and a second group under Bishop Nitschmann soon after. It was with this group that the Wesleys sailed to America.30

Oglethorpe's desire for more Moravians in Georgia brought Zinzendorf to London, and he made contact with Charles Wesley, who was at the time staying with James Hutton, a bookseller who kept open house for evangelicals. No specifically Moravian group was set up at this time, but Peter B6hler, in London in 1738 prior to going to South Carolina, met with the Wesley circle at Oxford and London, and organised a society on

the established pattern among ten young men who met at Hutton's house.

John Wesley, newly returned from America, and under strong Moravian in- fluence, was a leading member.

Wesley's conversion occured soon after Bohler's departure, and in

29Followers of the Reformation theologian Schwenkenfeld; mystical in attitude, they could not accept the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, and developed a doctrine of the deification of Christ's humanity. Oxford

Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1229.

30This paragraph and most of what follows is based on G.A. Wauer, The Beginnings of the Brethrens' Church in England (trans. J. Elliot.


House, Baildon, Yorkshire:





- 16 -

1738 he left with Benjamin Ingham 31 to visit Moravian settlements in Germany.

He met Zinzendorf at Marienborn, and the friction that developed between these two autocrats was aggravated by the refusal of the Brethren there to admit Wesley to the Communion, on the grounds that he was a "restless

man." Impressed though he was with Herrnhut, Wesley's disenchantment with

the Moravians developed quickly. For a time he maintained his connection with Hutton's society which by now was an important centre of religious

enthusiasm with a chapel in Fetter Lane, but in 1740 left with his own faction to work alone.

The underlying cause of the schism lay partly in conflicts of personality, partly in a dispute as to the nature of conversion. The Moravian faction within the Fetter Lane Society gave the impression that

conversion was instantaneous and complete; there was no struggle, no painful reconciliation. Zinzendorf mistrusted transports and self-torture, and

recommended a passive attitude, on the grounds that salvation was a gift that should be received in quietness, with no effort on the part of the individual concerned. There was no room for doubts. This form of quietism was preached in an exaggerated form in London by Peter Molther, a missionary on his way to Pennsylvania, who maintained that there was no faith short of full assurance, and that without it, all religious activities were useless.

John Wesley had never been sure that his interior peace was up to Moravian standards, and had never been able to rid himself of doubts. He could not accept the implication that his conversion was not genuine, and against the Moravian doctrine of stillness, maintained the idea that man could approach

31 1712-72. One of the Wesley group at Oxford, later evangelist in Yorkshire. DNB X:434.


grace by means of the sacraments. By 1740, moreover, he had begun to preach, moving crowds to emotional manifestations, while the Moravian group led by Hutton and Molther, continued to adhere to stillness.

This was the fundamental divergence, made worse by Wesley's suspicion of Moravian antinomianism, and Zinzendorf's suspicion of what he saw as Wesley's spiritual pride and legalism.32

From this time, the Fetter Lane Society came under direct

Moravian influence. Spangenberg arrived in London in 1741, and proceeded to organise the English work around Hutton and the Society. In October 1742, Fetter Lane was established as a "Congregation of the Unity of the Brethren", licensed as a dissenting congregation, and approved by the lot. 33 Spangen- berg also organised missionary work, especially in Yorkshire, where the aim, as always, was to evangelise and not to proselytise. As the century passed, the English Moravians came under even stronger German control, and were not allowed to develop a church with a specifically national character.

From the start the English Church was expected to play its part in missionary activity. Spangenberg in 1741 set up a Society for the

Furtherance of the Gospel (S.F.G.) to act as a rallying point for all interested in the Brethrens' missions. It met on the first Monday of each month to listen to mission reports, and to take a collection; i t gave help and hospitality to any missionary passing through London. The membership declined in the 1750's, but with an increasing number of missions being established in British Colonies, and the possibility of a Labrador mission,

32Knox, Enthusiasm, pp. 467-473. For a full account, see Clifford W. Towlson, Moravian and Methodist (London: The Epworth Press, 1957), pp.79-117.

33 Wauer, Beginnings of the Brethrens' Church, p. 90.


- 18 -

the Society "renewed and reformed" itself on September 23, 1768, in order

1 . 1 34

to p ay a more act1ve ro e.

34"Retrospect of the Origin and Progress of the Brethrens' Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, and of its operations during the past hundred years." PA XVI: 1-5.


LABRADOR, 1752-1764

A mission had been established among the Greenland Eskimos by the Norwegian Hans Egede in 1724. He worked under great difficulties, with little encouragement, and with small success. 1 At the coronation of Christian VI at Copenhagen in 1731, Zinzendorf met two of the converts and determined to send help if possible.2

The first Moravian party, con- sisting of Matthew and Christian Stach, and Christian David, left for Greenland in 1733. From an early date, the Greenland missionaries were of the opinion that the people living on the other side of Davis Strait were akin to Greenlanders, an impression confirmed by the reports of Henry Ellis, who in 1746-7 made an attempt on the North-West Passage. 3 Matthew Stach was among the first to advocate an extension of mission work to the American Eskimos. Leaving Greenland in 1751, he applied to

the Hudson's Bay Company for permission to preach to the natives attached to their factories, but this was refused.


Stach returned to Greenland, but the project had fired the imagination of John Christian Ehrhardt, a sailor from Wismar, who had been converted while on a visit to St. Thomas in the West Indies in 1741, where he had met Moravian missionaries. He had subsequently been the mate on a whaler working in Disko Bay, and seems also to have sailed in the Irene, the supply ship for the Greenland Moravian settlements.

1see L. Babe, Hans Egede. Coloniser and Missionary of Greenland (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1952).

2 Crantz, Greenland, II:4.

3 Crantz, Greenland, II:287.


Crantz, Greenland, II:ll9,287.


- 20 -

He had therefore probably met Stach, and had certainly picked up some of the Eskimo language. 5 As early as 1750, he had written to Bishop de

Watteville on the subject of a Labrador mission -

Now, dear Johannes, thou knowest that I am an old Greenland traveller; I have also an amazing affection for these northern countries, Indians, and other barbarians; i t would be a source of the greatest joy if the Saviour would discover to me that He has chosen me.6

In 1752, after the failure of Stach's scheme, Ehrhardt was given permission to go to Labrador. Three merchant members of the London congregation, Nisbet, Grace and Bell, bought and fitted out the Hope, "so that the Brethren could establish a settlement and publish

the Gospel there, and for the purpose of trade." 7 It was hoped that the voyage would pay for itself, and that the coastal trade would be fruitful enough for a regular communication to be kept up with Labrador without financial help from the Church itself. Ehrhardt was engaged as super- cargo; he would have been captain, had there been time for him to be naturalised before the voyage, and the owners stipulated that on the next trip the present captain, Madgson, would become mate, and that Ehrhardt would take his place. As i t was, his position was a special one; the

council on board was to consist of Madgson, Ehrhardt, the clerk (Hamilton), and the mate (Goffe), but in the case of a tie, Ehrhardt was to have the casting vote. 8 Four Brethren were to go as missionaries - George Golkowsky,

5 Crantz, Greenland, II:287. Also, J.W. Davey, The Fall of Torngak (London: Moravian Mission Agency, 1905), pp. 60-2.

6Quoted in Davey, Fall of Torngak, p. 60.

7Diary of Kunz, Post, Krum and Golkowsky, May - November 1752. LA 4, PAC 548. Tr.

8Instructions for Capt. John Madgshon and John Erhardt our Agent in our ship called the Hope May 3, 1752. LA 4.


John Christian Krum, Frederick Post, and Matthew Kunz. Before leaving they were given to understand by Zinzendorf, who was then in London, that the

! voyage was primarily a reconnaissance, and that if they decided to stay in Labrador, i t was to be entirely of their own free will; if any one of them decided to return with the ship, he was at liberty to do so, and was not necessarily bound by the decision of the others. 9

The Hope left London on May 18th, and Gravesend on the 21st.

On July 11th, Belle Isle was sighted, and on the 13th the ship cast anchor in a bay teeming with codfish. Goffe gives the latitude as 52°30' north, an inlet now known as Alexis Bay, but which the missionaries, in pedestrian fashion, called "Codd Bay." The missionaries and some others went on shore the next day, and "we found i t to be a Land Vastly Barren and No Singes that Ever theire had Been any human Creature theire." However, they sang a Liturgy together to give thanks for their fortune so far, and held a Lovefeast to dedicate the land and its inhabitants to God. Ehrhardt and Hamilton set up a "monument" taking possession of the land in the King's name, and after the ship had taken on wood and water, the expedition con- tinued north on July 18th. The next day, they sailed into a "very fine

inlet," which they explored on the 20th and found to be much more attractive than "Codd Bay;" predictably, they called i t "Faire Bay." This may have been Rocky Bay, or possibly Table Bay. The Brethren were struck by the

9niary, as cited above. This document is the main source for the following account, together with A Journal of an intended voyage By Gods Permission on the Good Ship Hope Capt. Madgson from London to the Coast of Larabodor and to Newfoundland and to Watterford. Transactions and observations Keept and Noted By me Elijah Goff Being. then Cheife

Mate of sd. Ship. November 8, 1752. LA 4. Except where other citations are given, these are the only sources used. There is some discrepancy between them with regard to dates, and Goffe's Journal has been followed in this respect. The dates are given in New Style, although Goffe for the most part used the Old Style.


- 22 -

abundance of wildfowl and good stands of trees, and they seriously con-

sidered settling there. There were, however, few signs of human occupation, and the Hope continued north on the 21st.

By July 26th, the Hope was outside Windy Tickle, which the missionaries took to be the entrance to Davis Inlet. There was a thick fog, and the ship was becalmed. They could see nothing until the 28th, when they heard "an uncommon Noise and Directly Saw 5 Eskemo Kyacks" which

came within two hundred yards of the boat. Ehrhardt hailed them through a megaphone, and when they held up whalebone, had the ship's boat lowered,

and went out to meet them. The Eskimos came on board, and "they were friendly and kissed us, but when they had traded some whalebone and seal- skins, they hurried away." Only Ehrhardt could understand anything of their speech.

No Eskimos visited the Hope the next day, although two kayaks were seen, and the ship continued its slow drift south. On the 30th, a

southwest wind got up, and being unable to get into Davis Inlet, they put into a bay to the south, where there was good holding ground, and they


would be safe from storms. The Watchword of the day was favourable -

"At the last day you will come into the land where many peoples are gathered

together and live in peace. There God lives with man" - and the Brethren decided to build their house there.

after one of the owners of the Hope.

The bay they called Nisbet's Harbour, 10

Eskimos came to the bay to trade; on the 31st, sixteen came to trade bone and sealskins, and on August 2nd, a far greater crowd in kayaks and larger boats. The missionaries found them "friendly but thievish,"

1°For a discussion of the location of Nisbet's Harbour, see Appendix I, p. 228.


and unwilling to stay on board longer than was necessary. The handicap imposed on the former by ignorance of the language prevented any long conversation, but being anxious to find out where the Eskimos lived,

Ehrhardt, Kunz, and Post followed them to their tents. The Eskimos struck camp and moved away to the north.

The next day the Brethren put up a temporary hut they had brought with them, and began to clear a site and fell trees for their

house. Ehrhardt asked the crew to help with the work, but they all utterly refused except for the captain, the carpenter, and the cook. In spite of this, the Brethren were able to lay the foundation stone on August 9th:

"Brother Kunz said a prayer, and we called the place Hoffnungsthal [Hopedale], for we built in the trust and hope that the dear Saviour would, in His own time, receive the reward for His suffering from the poor Eskimos. " The work went on quite fast, in spite of those on shore being "Almost Eate up with muskeaters," and time was found to clear land for a garden, and to plant salad, herbs and root vegetables

"frost came too soon."

none of which grew to any size, as the

By Septemb~rd, the house~s virtually finished, twenty-two feet long and sixteen feet wide, with a living room, store room, and kitchen.

The ship was anxious to be on its way, and Ehrhardt brought ashore provisions for one year, together with two cannon and eight muskets. The missionaries signed a paper declaring they remained behind of their own free will, and wrote letters to Europe which they gave to Ehrhardt and Hamilton when they came ashore to take their leave. The Hope sailed out of the bay on the 4th, saluting those left behind with a cannon shot. The missionaries transferred their possessions from the hut to the house, and began to prepare for winter.


- 24 -

At the mouth of the bay, the Hope met an umiak, but as the Eskimos had little to trade, continued north with the boat in company. It was not long before they met other boats, and did a little trading, before coming to anchor. Trading continued on the 5th and 6th, and on the 7th, the Hope anchored at "as we conclude the mouth of Davises Inlet." They were near an Eskimo camp, but the volume of trade was small, and at midnight on the night of the 9th-10th, the watch heard the Eskimos "hollow an Bawl and we judge that they then was Removing as they made us to understand they had more whale Bone to the Northward and we judge they are going to fetch i t as they told us they would." On the morning of the 11th, two Eskimos came out to the Hope and asked Ehrhardt to go on shore to trade; this he did, and later in the day the Eskimos came and traded on the ship. The same pattern occured the next morning, September 12th, when three Eskimos again asked Ehrhardt to go ashore, as two boats had come from the north

laden with whalebone, With Ehrhardt went Hamilton, the bosun, three sailors (Lawson, Gordon, and Newel), and the captain- this last in the hope of

preventing thefts which had occured on shore the day before.

The ship's boat was soon out of sight behind an island, and was never seen again. They were expected back in two hours, and Gaffe, who had a healthy mistrust of the natives, was at once concerned when they failed to return. No sign of life was seen, except that about three hours after the boat had left, Gaffe saw an Eskimo stand on top of the island, look towards the ship, and run down again. That night all hands were ke~on deck, lights were hoisted, and a cannon fired at intervals. The watch was maintained throughout the 13th, but nothing was seen. Gaffe had no boat in which to investigate, and on the 14th, when i t looked as though i t was going

to blow, he decided to go back to Nisbet's Harbour, pick up the missionaries'


yawl, and then begin a search, although in his own mind he was sure that the seven men had been killed. The Hope weighed anchor at 11 a.m. and at 5.30 that evening, the missionaries saw the Hope enter the harbour and signal to them with a shot.

The missionaries were unable to come out to the Hope until high tide on the morning of the 15th. The yawl set out at once for the island where the seven had disappeared, but was driven back by high winds, which prevented any attempt the next day as well. After discussing the matter on the 17th, the missionaries decided to return home with the ship, which would otherwise have been seriously undermanned. Snow on the hills the next morning increased the missionaries' haste to be gone, their nerve apparently destroyed by the massacre. They took their goods on board ship and nailed up the house, but being unwilling to admit that there was no hope at all for the seven, they left "a sufficient Quantity of Provisions,

Cloaths and Tools, in Case our People, as i t is very probable, should retire to the House."11

They hid the key, leaving directions on a paper fixed to the door "that they might finde i t if they escaped." The Hope left the bay on September 19th; the wind was against their going to the island, and with "the advice of the Passengers and Importunity of the crew,"

Gaffe set a course for St. John's. As they sailed away, the missionaries dedicated "the land and the Eskimos to the dear Saviour, that in His own time His Name would be glorified there. The Watchword was - 'Grace and truth will not leave thee.'"

11Abstract from different Letters wrote from the Valley of Hope near Nesbithaven Sept. 4 & from St. John's Harbour, October 9 & 10 in the year 1752. PAC A 568.


- 26 - The expectation that the seven were still alive was repeated in the Instructions issued to Goffe in 1753, when he made another voyage to Labrador in the Hope. 12 Goffe made Nisbet Harbour on July 20th, .and

"found the House tore all to pieces, saw no signes of our People." On

August 1st, he searched the island where they had disappeared, but again found no traces. The Hope then went on north as far as 60 35', but on the 0

way south, stopped again at Nisbet Harbour, and sent the longboat "down

amongst the islands." By chance, the boat stopped at an island on which they found the bodies of the missing men, "but could not distinguish any one but Mr. Hamilton, they being so mangled." 13 In 1774, Brother Beck at Nain asked some Arvertok Eskimos if they had heard of the expedition.

They said that they knew of i t , although they were children at the time.

The leader they called "Johanisseme Attolik," and the house, they said, had been plundered by people from Kippokak; many of these had been hurt,

b h h d f . b 1 f d f . . 14

ecause t ey a set 1re to a arre o gunpow er out o cur1os1ty.

There were no further Moravian expeditions to Labrador until 1764, when

Jens Haven, inspired by Ehrhardt's murder to carry on the work there finally received permission to make a reconnaissance.

The question remains, however, as to why the 1752 massacre occured; and this, as well as later Moravian voyages and attitudes, can only be explained and understood when placed in the context of Eskimo-

12Instruction for Captain Elis: Goffe and John Bell Clarke in the ship called Hope, March 29, 1753. LA 4.

13Goffe to Nisbet [?], Oct. 6, 1753. PAC A 568.

14ND 10/9/74.


Killinek ls.~Cape Chidley





"''·· t3


o NAIN - mission station


(Arvertok) - Eskimo group names

25 so 75 100



late 18th century

Neitsektok (Sandwich

~ Bay)







I 59:_;




Charles B. C. Charles


- 28 -

European relations on the Labrador coast. It would seem that by the sixteenth century at the latest, the Eskimos had spread along the north shore of the St. Lawrence as far west as Mlngan.15

In this southern area they came into conflict with the eastern Montagnais Indians, who were armed by the French, and with the white settlers who began moving onto the coast in the early eighteenth century. Courtemanche, who established himself at Bradore in 1702, was harrassed by Eskimos, and he was not the first European to find himself in this situation; the Basques had earlier been forced to give up their whaling operations.16

In the general anarchy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Indians and the whites, sometimes separately, sometimes in alliance,

pushed the Eskimos back first to the Straits of Belle Isle, and then north to the Hamilton Inlet, which remains their southern boundary. Some, of course, were left behind during this process to become absorbed eventually into the white population. This is indicated by the reports of Captain Cartwright and others of Eskimos in the south at the end of the eighteenth century. 17 The withdrawal to the north was certainly not complete by the 1760's, but there seem to have been no Eskimos living south of Cape Charles.

The presence of Europeans in the south created a magnet for the • Eskimos living in and to the north of the Hamilton Inlet. The withdrawal to the north is therefore confused by the habit these northern groups

15 V. Tanner, Outlines of the Geography, Life and Customs of Newfoundland-Labrador. (ACTA Geographica. Vol VIII, No. 1. Helsinki:

1944), p. 477.

16w.G. Gosling, Labrador: its Discovery, Exploration, and Development (London: Alston Rivers Ltd., 1910), pp. 131, 133.

17For discussion of the Eskimos in South Labrador, see Tanner, Newfoundland-Labrador, pp. 481-2; E.W. Hawkes, The Labrador Eskimo (Ottawa:

Government Printing Bureau, 1916), pp. 17-18; D. Jennes, Eskimo Administration:

III Labrador (Technical Paper No. 16. Montreal : Arctic Institute of North America, 1965), pp. 9-10; and A.S. Packard, "Notes on the Labrador Eskimo and Their former Range Southward." American Naturalist, Vol. XIX (1885), No. 5, p. 471; No. 6, p. 553. .




Related subjects :